sophisticated agriculture and special expertise that grew out of the circumstances and the homeland security. it's a

democratic state. so it's either jewish if they can vote or nondemocratic if they cannot. and there is no way to this simple and painful reality. the only way to decide it will be ready under the open eyed approach to the realities to delineate a bolder line within

the historic home of political, land of israel in a way that will take into account both security as well as demographic considerations and within which we will have a solid jewish majority for nations to come. and on the other side of it, a palestinian viable state that will reflect the palestinian dream, which is the national identity. i reached this conclusion not because we do not have the biblical rights or because we do not have a strong affiliation. we have both and julie so, that because we have to listen to reality as well and do what could and should be done in order to promote a strong, flourishing israel for generations to come.

we are now in the effort to move it on, to start with proximity talks. i hope that it will be open in the coming few weeks and that we follow by this way or another by a substantial as dialogue about the core issues that will still be between us and the breakthrough. we have visited all these issues several times in the last 20 years and there have been imperative 92. and my government and olmert's government and now under netanyahu government which is now under defense. as i said in the speech, we accept to states for two nations.

we realized that bill should be established viable state with the nation and all other normalcy. but this government in its guidelines accepted, whether it says a combination of the two, for those of you acquainted with the details. and we committed ourselves to all agreements approved by previous government, which will not right wing government. we reflect a kind of nation all unity, not a typical nation, right leg is much heavier than the left leg. but within that, we include basically the politics of israel. and i keep telling you, those of you who know israel, there is a strong, silent majority in israel. of which already to make tough,

painful decisions in order to reach this once we feel that there is already on the other side and we are not having this time ago a loan. and i think that the efforts from the bottom up building of institutions and the orders of the future palestinian state is by prime minister fouad siniora, which whatever support we can give to it. and we want to see a strong palestinian. we want to see a weaker hamas. and we try to coordinate actions with them towards this direction. and i can tell you that having talking about the opportunity, i cannot ignore the issue of

syria. it's not a secret that in israel, both my thoughts and the defense minister in the past and now as well as the israeli defense establishment on olmert's effort we have strong strategic effort in putting an end to our conflict with syria. we have been in negotiation in this city and in the other places, regarding to this issue and in the peres government, netanyahu government and olmert's government. and all of us know what is on the table. all of us know what kind of decisions are needed to be taken by both sides. all of us are realistic about what could be achieved or what cannot be achieved in the very first moment. and i insist that this is an

opportunity molded in sweat if opportunities cleverly keeping the dignity of the other side on their own stages. having said that, i can tell you that we are strong enough to face deterioration if it happens on our forum. or we are not in it. we will not initiate it. and i do not believe that anyone in the region, in the immediate neighborhood of israel really needs it. we follow carefully what happens in lebanon. and i see that the time has come to deal with it in a much more straight and real manner. the essence of 1701, the u.n.

security resolution following the last war in the north in 2006 was to put an end to this animality of the existence of hezbollah in lebanon. and instead of serving the parliament and just allowed it to become more complicated. there is a bizarre anomaly there. lebanon is a member state of the united nations. it happens to the militia. a militia had 12 members in parliament, even ministers in the cabinet with a veto power over the decision of the liberty government. now it is supported in the script i other states of the united nations. syria and iran.

technologically with equipment and many civil servants in uniform and without uniform of both member states of the united nations are serving in lebanon with the chain of command of hezbollah and giving orders come as canning not out of the lebanese people, but other players. and happen to be the militia doesn't just happen to develop a new more effect they have, but it happened to have 45,000 rockets and missiles that cover israel and are part of the deployment that says they'll activate it and we esteemed it in the past. this militia happened to have weapons systems that some many lebanese don't have. we cannot accept the

differentiation between the hezbollah and the fate of lebanon and their sponsors. and we keep saying, we do not need any conflict. we do not lead it towards one. but if attacked, we will bow to not chase an individual in hezbollah inside the building and digging within the urban concentration. inside the cities, inside the civilian population. and these weapons that they have mainly cannot be used against any military target. they're not accurate enough. the only considerable use of most of those weapons is against civilian population in heavily urban concentration. and that's what they tried to do in the past. so we make it clear, we don't

need this conflict. but if it is imposed upon us, we will not run after every individual terrorist, but we will take both the lebanese government and other sources of sponsorship. the mainly the lebanese government and lebanese infrastructure is part of the equation facing us. and to continue the challenges or threats, i have to mention that the hamas, they suffer the major blow a year ago in a midsize operation we launched in the well deterred, are still accumulating more and more blogger rage rockets to the

smuggling system that goes all the way from iran through africa to the gaza strip. and the situation is not fully stable. we still have about its soldiers in iran and that complicates some aspects of the normalization of the situation. but it's quiet, more quiet than anywhere in the past, but internally -- and that's it about iran. iran is not just a challenge to israel. they believe it's a challenge for the whole world. i can hardly think of a considerable stable world order with a nuclear iran. it is clear to us and i believe more clear to others that iran tries to defy, defeat and deterred the whole world

regarded to each nuclear ambition and it claims to get more time to enable it's moving toward a nuclear military capability. the goal is to layer and becoming clearer by the day. i seen in the last report that the new head of the iaea is highly important because it shows that international agencies can, if the will is due, call the state and stop all these gymnastics about what the evergreen and is doing. if they make implosion, the experiments on heavy metals, with the array of simultaneously

activated detonators and if they're working so intensively by the two@ n)@ rbrb

in such a delicate corner of the world. if iran will not be stopped from moving there, and it will reach a certain point nuclear military capability and iran will close its eyes and see what it needs. a nuclear iran means the end of any long proliferation regime. so olivia and another two or three members of the middle eastern community will feel compelled to reach nuclear capability as well. and we open the door for any state to as a nuclear ambition to understand that it is drunk enough mentally to defy any kind of from the world it will admit nuclear capability. i don't think that the iranians

have most examples, probably some certain example of how easy it could be to try and defeat the whole world. they probably think of themselves as another pakistan. and probably they started it totally independent of the issue in israel. but they gradually adopted israel is a major cause for their hegemonic intentions and you have -- mahmoud ahmadinejad just said they are looking for a new middle east for shimon peres. according to ahmadinejad and his hostage, something that should be free of violence, and once again they happen to develop not a napoleon artillery, but nuclear weapons.

and we cannot take it and i propose to others not to take it too easily. it's not just the end of any nonproliferation regime. i believe that it hurts a countdown that is a first account described by professor crom in his book nuclear tourism and leads to another half a generation of old nuclear devices at the hands. and those of you who are acquainted with nuclear strategy, please start thinking what shape can they multi-deterred against a nuclear attack with no address to it. how such a strategy might look. and you will realize how intensive is a concrete and

conclusive we should be in regard to this threat before it materializes. and it's not just about a demonic kind of nuclear capability. i don't think that the iranians, even if they got a bum, going to drop it until they fully understand what might follow their radical, but not total machines. [laughter] they have quite sophisticated decision-making process in the understand realities. but, it's not just in the nuclear arena, almost in the demonic impressions -- we might feel very quickly the radicals from al qaeda to islamic jihad and the other will feel and what

kind of impact it will have on their assertiveness and self-confidence of the radical players. and not to mention the indirect capacity to influences the prices, to influence the prices of oil. all these could be part of the nuclear iran. and i think with open eyes. we just have to follow with this what we are saying in all capitals of the leading members of international community that iran, a nuclear military iran is unacceptable. the point is how to translate this clear message into reality. when a critical dialogue with

them for several years, the united states is trying to now an actual word of the dialogue itself would work, but neither is sincere working or sanctioned by believe that it's important that there is a need beyond the type of whether it's herding or crippling or paralyzing as i would like it. it's really a significant sanctions, effective ones within a time limit they'll work together with the russians and the chinese that they could be brought to do it. i feel that the administration is doing the utmost effort to deliver an effective set of sanctions. we appreciate it and we hope it will be successful.

but we also should carry certain skepticism and always think slowly and in a consequential manner about what should have been it's against our hopes we should. the tension under the surface and i ran and especially following the elections on what a band recently, we see that the regime on its own people and even the cohesion of the leading group of ayatollahs are both a threat and probably the countdown that have started. i don't know if any serious observer who can tell us whether it will take two years, four years, six years, or ten. and it's clear to me that the

clock toward the corrupt of this regime goes much slower than the clock which takes towards iran becoming nuclear military power. and this is the reason why simultaneously with diplomacy and effective sanctions, we recommend to all players, not to remove any option from the table. and we adopt this attitude for ourselves as well. to summarize my opening remarks, i would say that we are living in a unique ear, a quite confusing, embarrassing almost amount of challenges and opportunities coming together in a huge. i find leaders all around the

world more and more coming to grips with realities and more open eyes of founded capitals of the free world and even some pituitary encounters. and whether we can suffice to tackle the challenges and some of the opportunities. my feeling is that some of the challenges will be with us longer than 2010. it's really time for coordination on a high level between leaders of the world and i think that within this kind of dialogue, the most important point to be kept in mind is that

our responsibility is inevitable to let ourselves being drifted into a sort of self dilution where it is to talk while you're considering the consequences of either choice in the decision is just to gradually close your eyes to it. that's something we cannot afford. we can't make this kind of decision. we can make a combination of decisions. we cannot afford closing our eyes to what's developing in front of them. the united states is clearly the number one leader of the world in the internal debates that you have the eyes over the rest of the world focused at you.

mostly in this big struggle about the how the world will look like when it is a multipolar world and how the balance between a dialogue and if alternatives are exhausted, the use of a forest, not just the south tower, how this balance will be shaped. it's extremely strongly dependent upon the american conclusions. and i think that if we disregard the public dialogue the way that in america, the public participators think themselves, the attempt to understand and the illicit opportunities from a complicated situation. i think this is something that is done here in a much more

intensive way than in any other quarter of the world and washington is to deny senior members of respected institutes in the city is extremely important. our feeling towards israel as i've said i do not delude myself to situations would be an easy sliding toward 2011 with no need to make decisions. but still, i've mistake about israel, i see many opportunities of these difficulties around us. and i hope and wish all of you a good year. thank you very much. [applause] >> administer barak, thank you very much.

that harkens back to your days as head of military intelligence for such an impressive briefing on threats and opportunities. so, thank you very much. i'd like to open up by asking you more specifically about the u.s. israel relationship, concerning the agenda you just outlined. there is currently a slew of visits of high-level officials in the national security realm, the vice president is going shortly. but as i trust you more specifically about the depth of this relationship, especially as concerned the challenge from iran. the level of coordination, level of cooperation in the meeting of minds, to what extent does that exist on the nature of the problem and on the nature of the solution? >> probably recalling several questions, so i'm over --

[laughter] >> why don't you take that and i'm going to identify some other -- >> you are the head of the institute. [laughter] fairness to all. but you can ask for more. >> david mikulski on my left on my right rather than on my far left here. could you wait for the microphone to come to you and identify yourself for all of our viewers around the world. >> david mikulski washington institute. mr. administer, we talked about maximizing the success of institution building. can you also survey of the minister of defense how important as the security cooperation between israelis and palestinians banned to the tranquility that is existing now on the ground? and also, you mentioned a border

demarcation has a compelling imperative for israel, given that some issues like jerusalem and the like are very sensitive with a lot of resonance. can you see focusing on borders first as the first item on the final status agenda? >> on the left here, the microphone, please. >> administer barak, i would like to ask you what the time limit for israel to rely on diplomacy? in my second question, why israel cannot live with a nuclear era? >> why do we take that. the complements of -- [laughter] i'm slow in writing in english.

okay, you know, we've got a number of questions. i think our relationship with the united states, those decades recalled here, one of the founding fathers and they went through ups and downs, but basically the underlying attributes of democracy we perceived ourselves an outpost of the western way of life of ideas of democracy, open society, western way of life in a region that was tribal and go gradually into more normalcy. i hope it will improve the future. and we have the same common

basis of values and a lot of support from the united states along these bipartisan, both sides of the political eyes on many issues from military edge to we've been the economics approach when it was amended. and in a moment of truth with the united states to stand and make sure -- and we felt very proud that we never asked america to come favorite. we basically, once again to paraphrase on the church, we tell you to give us the tools and will do the job. we said that by supporting israel hungry basic terms, the united states relieves itself from the need to contribute

directly to something that happens in regard to israel. i think that this is the basis of it even now. even beyond it, there is of course a sort of difference in perspective and difference in judgment, a difference in the internal clock and difference in capabilities. and i don't think that there is the need to coordinate in this regard. it should be from the exchange of views. we do not need to coordinate. we clearly support the attempt of diplomacy. we clearly think, despite america, when you look at nuclear iran, you have allies like france and u.k. you have a nuclear russia and china, india, pakistan, so probably from this corner of the

world, it doesn't change this thing dramatically from a closer distance. in israel, looks like the tipping point from the quite certain consequences to the wider world, global world order. and we tried to convince sheer as well as in europe or even in beijing, to ki-moon ban who was here a few years ago towards using the chinese. so it's a lot different, but i think basically it the underlying issue is strong and mutual respect and we understand the united states and the united states must understand they are not in the same situation as we are. and i think that this mutual

respect and capacity to listen to, to take into cramped considerations, even without speaking about them explicitly or publicly is more important in the other aspects. regarding to mikulski's questions or to questions, the efforts made by the palestinian authorities, especially fouad siniora from here and found them very intimate coordination with us, regarding to the opportunity , very fruitful. a two star until recently the commander of this region, a battalion after depauw and to

come back into the early i recruit them and let them bring the wet bins. and they're changing the way. if you go now through ramallah or in a blues, you will find something you've never seen in years, many for more than a decade, the economy is going very fast, public order is very clear. they are gradually building both institutions and the rules of the game. the canadians are helping them and somehow upon their prison system. and the suggestion is much better. even when recently we imposed a freeze on the new business some ten months. and it was quite a vocal,

intense meetings with the leaders of israel sentiments in the west bank. they all agreed that underground is better on anywhere in the past and clearly part of it is our effectiveness in the security service in the idf. the activities and part of it is clearly the result of the building of security forces for them. regarding to the borders, first of all, it would be agreed whether it be so. i personally think the leaders, and i can talk that if we take these challenges of having a break in diplomatic agreement, thereby looking at the whole,

any kind of giving up of concessions on any isolated elements, expose them politically, when they do not know whether they do not have an agenda. they do not know whether they will have done. and they are starting to pray the price. and even if it's in the public eye, we negotiate issues and you have on the agenda, borders and security, jerusalem and refugees, the end of conflict, you cannot very easily be with one element. because on both sides come on the compromises achieved, the too painful for both sides knowing what's going on on the other side it makes most sense in my mind to move probably the advancement would not be the same and a certain point it becomes clear, what are the give-and-take, the trade-offs that could be done on all of

them in order to make it acceptable for both sides. entirety told in front of president obama and netanyahu, the toughest decisions left to make will be vis-à-vis his own people, and the toughest decisions that yahoo! will have to make vis-à-vis israel, not vis-à-vis mahmoud abbas. and the activity should be invested in finding the way how to shorten the corridor through which political leaders from both sides will have to go expose politically before they can make the decisions. and probably how to shape events that by the very nature change overnight the perception of the country by millions on both sides. this should be the focal point

of creative sorts in order to reach decisions. i think the topic that basically answered your questions during my lecture. i cannot talk about time limits and so on. i do not think that there is any developed aunt in the area that would put the continuity of existence of israel and a? i don't accept this kind of hypotheses that there could be something that was the continuity of existence of israel. but it's clear and i try to explain it while letting iran turned nuclear risks not just israel, but the whole middle east and really open the way for the ahmadinejad version of the

new middle east. i want to warn all of you when i mentioned shimon peres did not ever hints that there is any similarity -- [laughter] as we say in hebrew, if thousands of thousands difference is, but they're just viewed the same term. i think that because we aren't middle easterners, i think that many of you also are middle eastern citizens, we should ask ourselves whether it's possible to stop it and if it's possible to stop it, a better middle east will emerge. not very good weird next set of questions, ambassador breaker on my right and that right here and then.

..

how do you do philip -- what is your strategy for dealing with all of these very difficult challenges? >> thank you. in the center? >> you mentioned the delegation -- >> identify yourself. >> than from the reuters agency. the chinese government put out a statement describing the talks as exclusively in matters of bilateral issues celebrating i think 18 years of tides. the official chinese posture has been to play down the iran aspect of the tools. given that an effective security

council resolution appears to hinge on china are you optimistic about the chinese consent what israel would like to see, and if so do you think the american messages is about the assumed is really a military option or the destabilizing of fact, the american institutions have been effective and is this a message posturing of the current talks by the israeli delegation? >> i'm from the right actually. [laughter] first of all i want to echo what was said, there is a word in english from the understands that's called mention. you did a fantastic job. you left out one country i was surprised and that's turkey and i wonder if you could talk about the state of the israeli turkish relations right now.

>> to martin's question, israel is strong.@@@@ rbrb @ @ ú@ @ @ carefully to the doubt to what will he move, what kind of political pressure he faces an however important they are. first we have slightly different

systems than yours. here you choose a president and we said constraints and need to negotiate with congress, but it is not threatened for the continue tero. israel the prime minister weeks of the morning and you see if he is still there. [laughter] and he can be replaced at any moment so there is a more sensitive kind of navigation needed, and i always answer these by returning the challenge namely instead of speculating whether the government can live up to the commitments that i've mentioned or not let's bring

them to read the proof of the pudding is in the eating. let's push them to the negotiation. we are ready to go. we made it clear what, let's put them to the test, both sides. there are some israelis who suspect the palestinian relationship is not ready. they are ready to get more policies but the moment that we,, even if extremely daring proposal like the one that we put on the table under the clinton administration will be there, they will not be capable of signing an agreement that at the indigent this agreement is in this conflict and finality of mutual claims, and i tell them

the same wife speculate? we can never prove it unless we bring them into the home and be ready to put those proposals on the table and see and judge. it carries certain risks as on the experience if it doesn't fly it goes into violence but i think that both sides are more experience of now and we can avoid or minimize when these risks. but having said that i should tell you that we are facing in israel opposition not just from the right side to what, we find certain rejection a of the attempt to with to go to the police and try to have a breakthrough from the right side from people who are long life supporters of the peace project.

and we find them acting against they cannot explain it. when they are telling about a young cadet in a fighter pilot school. he was asked where do you want to go and he answered aircraft artillery and was asked why and he answered if i don't fly, no one will. [laughter] a and i tell my colleague so leading former ministers of israel trying to slow down, i tell them we do not need the artillery now. we need all of the support that you can give to move on new with a serious process that we put to

the test on both sides one and their readiness to go and i keep telling my colleagues even in the government i'm confident that there is a strong silent majority in israel when the moment comes to make the decision we will find 50% and three-quarters -- 90% of cuddy am i will be my position, not in what seems to be the reigning position and this government and i think that a netanyahu understands the challenge and of the government based on what it says it's ready to go.

in regard to to the questions, i do not pretend to be a great expert on china. our mission is just about information. we know we are more than 1 billion people. [laughter] we cannot think a war of sharing them, the development and currencies. the relationship with them based on the amount. they didn't buy a lot. [laughter] we want to share with them our feelings about what is going on

in the world and with the ivory ne project and the chinese are interested and we have quite a body of information about it we want to share with them. the question about turkey we have a long relationship with turkey, very strategic. there are changes in turkey in changes. i happen to meet many times with a minister and recently with david and of course minister of defense and there are changes they can place some people in israel and others try to categorize it in a simple black and white kallur i don't see that this is the case. this is a historic and higher with deep understanding of the region and very nuanced attitude

to what happened to them internally and veazey the european union and all i still believe that we do do not need to create, i think in turkey we'd better have a partner understanding the partnership but keep nurturing it. it could be of high importance in more than one place and is still, there are many players to the relationship and some of them are still working very well i don't like everything that was said but i don't think that we should make anything that has been said a major cornerstone of our judgment. i have been to find them

high-quality heavyweights, not lightweights, respectable persons. i am afraid we have to go to the -- some other meetings in the state department. >> friends, we are going to leave in just a moment. when we close if i could ask to let the minister and his delegation to part through this door and wait for just a moment but as we close i would like to thank on behalf of the washington institute and the friends and family thank you so much for joining today for this wonderful seminar. [applause] >> thank 't't't't't't't't't't't't't?t'r'ñ